On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I tried removing proxy-maint from metadata after multiple discussions
> failed. Extra happiness towards monsieurp "but the GH PR is over 3 days
> old, I have to commit" and gokturk "Yes I understand. I commit anyway"
> This has been an uphill struggle since about October, around New Year I
> stopped actively caring, and since these two commits:
> 12c3eacda7c4d23686eaf10eab21d810cc95ea49
> f42d6679c038c3efcc257d38547267d01823aea9
> I see no way to fix this situation that doesn't involve a review board in
> front of all proxy-maint commits. Because we discussed this in IRC, and
> still ... "but is open bug"
> However, as far as I'm aware none of this happened. Note that I might
>> have missed the mail, or it might have been sent before I joined --
>> correct me if that is the case.
> There were multiple discussions in IRC, which the involved people usually
> forgot within about 20 minutes and then resumed doing stuff.
> I tried removing proxy-maint from metadata, which was reverted (sooo how
> does one *not* have constant interference?)
> As Alec pointed out, it is a normal procedure in Gentoo to remove old
>> versions of software if there is no explicit indication that they need
>> to be kept. Therefore, I don't see anything wrong with the proxied
>> maintainer wishing to clean the old versions up and/or not requesting
>> your explicit permission for that. If you needed the old versions, you
>> should have made that clear.
> One could ask, maybe. I guess I can (mis)understand this to mean that I
> can do with packages with you in metadata what I want because ... err...
> shiny!
> I should also point out that the steps you've taken (and listed in this
>> mail) are not really relevant. They make you look like a sloppy
>> maintainer, and a bad Gentoo developer at the best -- and I doubt anyone
>> would connect removing proxy-maint team with a necessity of keeping
>> an old version.
> The cooperation that I had with ferki was pretty good (mostly because we
> sat next to each other in the office). The contributions from Tomas were on
> average pretty ok, just needed some minor cleanups here and there.
> The blind "but PR is open for 3 days" commits from proxy-maint made it
> extremely hard to review what changed in a timely manner, so that I
> basically didn't want to care for this pile of stupid for the last, ahem, 6
> months or so. Especially since whenever I wanted to review things some
> joker made some new changes which made me go "eh whut how you? banana
> banana!" so I pushed reviewing a week into the future and ...
> I have no idea how I could have fixed this without the QA+Comrel banhammer
> combo, which is a totally insane "fix" to a problem that shouldn't even
> exist. But I see no other options how to make people understand that "No
> means no".
> Is this the new normal?

Everybody makes mistakes, but let's look from another perspective.
Elasticsearch 5.0 got released - a new major version. You did the bump, but
it didn't work (it was clearly pushed to the repo untested as
openrc/systemd version both failed:
Why didn't you fix it yourself?

Same for logstash:
Why did you commit a broken ebuild to the repo and never fixed it after
yourself? These bugs were open for weeks and months, not days...

Reply via email to